Post by account_disabled on Feb 27, 2024 3:59:10 GMT -5
Consumer behavior is one of the most effective drivers of responsibility in companies and it is desirable to promote it, from governments, from civil society institutions and from leading companies in responsibility. However, the rhetoric about the extent of this consumption far exceeds reality, in part because rhetoric has a very low cost and its implementation in reality requires efforts by all parties, consumers and companies. In this article we analyze this gap between real intentions expressed in surveys and consumer behavior . On several occasions we have referred to the wrong interpretations given to surveys on the responsible practices of companies and in particular on responsible consumption intentions. In the article The wrong question: Would you b? We discussed two fallacies about responsible consumption. The first refers to the bias that the questions incite and the second to the inferences that are made from the answers . About the first we commented: The question is usually something like: Would you buy a product that supports social causes or that has been produced with responsible practices……” The same question encourages a positive answer. Does the consumer want to look bad in front of the interviewer? Is it possible to answer that it would not? The surprising thing is that ONLY between 40% and 70% respond positively. The question is the wrong question at the wrong time. Not only because done this way it encourages a positive response , but because it is also hypothetical. Regarding the fallacy of the inferences made about the answers, we commented that: Due to the way the surveys are reported, a wrong and pernicious inference is made.
For example, even if the question was New Zealand WhatsApp Number correct and the positive answers allowed us to say, for example, that “30% of people buy taking into account the responsibility of the company”, does this mean that 30% of all their purchases are responsible? That is what is usually inferred, but we know that the answer is: No. There may be many who buy one or several products using the responsibility criterion, which allows them to say that they DO use the responsibility criterion and go on to increase that 30%. But for the rest of the other thousands of products and services they buy they have no information about their responsibility. It should not be interpreted, as some of these studies imply, that 30% of purchases are responsible, much less asking the wrong question! And we remembered “ the 30:3 empirical rule of responsible purchasing, which claims that if 30% say they would buy the product, only 3% do.” (It should be emphasized that this rule is not the result of rigorous statistical analysis but rather the result of casual observations). And even if 3% do it, this does not mean that responsible consumption covers 3% of total consumption. What is important is not the fact that a consumer engages in some responsible consumption and qualifies himself as a responsible consumer, but rather the percentage (in monetary or physical terms) of his total consumption that can be classified as responsible . If you buy a can of coffee labeled as fair trade once a month, that does not make you a responsible consumer. There is very little information on these percentages, only for some products and with responsibility defined in a very partial way (for example, paying fair wages or produced with environmental sustainability). cpnsumo Our analysis was based on appealing to the logic of actual observations compared to responses given to surveys, rather than statistical tests.
But now we have some more rigorous evidence in the form of an empirical study, dedicated to studying the gap between the intentions and reality of responsible consumption (there is an entire academic discipline (“reasoned action and planned behavior”) on the analysis of these gaps, published in mid-2006. In addition to making an extensive review of the academic literature on the subject, it includes the results of an empirical investigation on purchase intentions and actions in practice in the case of clothing produced in adverse working conditions ( sweatshops ) generally in developing countries. developmental. Working conditions in Bangladesh come to mind ( HR Violations in the Value Chain: Should I Leave or Stay? ). Our empirical study found a very low association between intentions and behavior. It could be argued that in some ethical contexts such as our example of avoiding the purchase of clothing produced in sweatshops, ethical consumers have great desires and therefore the motivation to act ethically, yet market conditions defeat them with or real obstacles such as lack of information, lack of selection and little fashion in the restricted selection available of clothing clearly produced under ethical conditions. Our example may be considered an extreme, but the truth is that there are great challenges for responsible consumers in reconciling their ethical principles and desires with the realities of the market. This result is obviously influenced by the difficulties cited and it is possible that the relationship between intentions and behavior is more notable in cases where there is greater selection and greater availability of information, or where the products come with some certification (fair trade, free of child labor , organic, etc.
For example, even if the question was New Zealand WhatsApp Number correct and the positive answers allowed us to say, for example, that “30% of people buy taking into account the responsibility of the company”, does this mean that 30% of all their purchases are responsible? That is what is usually inferred, but we know that the answer is: No. There may be many who buy one or several products using the responsibility criterion, which allows them to say that they DO use the responsibility criterion and go on to increase that 30%. But for the rest of the other thousands of products and services they buy they have no information about their responsibility. It should not be interpreted, as some of these studies imply, that 30% of purchases are responsible, much less asking the wrong question! And we remembered “ the 30:3 empirical rule of responsible purchasing, which claims that if 30% say they would buy the product, only 3% do.” (It should be emphasized that this rule is not the result of rigorous statistical analysis but rather the result of casual observations). And even if 3% do it, this does not mean that responsible consumption covers 3% of total consumption. What is important is not the fact that a consumer engages in some responsible consumption and qualifies himself as a responsible consumer, but rather the percentage (in monetary or physical terms) of his total consumption that can be classified as responsible . If you buy a can of coffee labeled as fair trade once a month, that does not make you a responsible consumer. There is very little information on these percentages, only for some products and with responsibility defined in a very partial way (for example, paying fair wages or produced with environmental sustainability). cpnsumo Our analysis was based on appealing to the logic of actual observations compared to responses given to surveys, rather than statistical tests.
But now we have some more rigorous evidence in the form of an empirical study, dedicated to studying the gap between the intentions and reality of responsible consumption (there is an entire academic discipline (“reasoned action and planned behavior”) on the analysis of these gaps, published in mid-2006. In addition to making an extensive review of the academic literature on the subject, it includes the results of an empirical investigation on purchase intentions and actions in practice in the case of clothing produced in adverse working conditions ( sweatshops ) generally in developing countries. developmental. Working conditions in Bangladesh come to mind ( HR Violations in the Value Chain: Should I Leave or Stay? ). Our empirical study found a very low association between intentions and behavior. It could be argued that in some ethical contexts such as our example of avoiding the purchase of clothing produced in sweatshops, ethical consumers have great desires and therefore the motivation to act ethically, yet market conditions defeat them with or real obstacles such as lack of information, lack of selection and little fashion in the restricted selection available of clothing clearly produced under ethical conditions. Our example may be considered an extreme, but the truth is that there are great challenges for responsible consumers in reconciling their ethical principles and desires with the realities of the market. This result is obviously influenced by the difficulties cited and it is possible that the relationship between intentions and behavior is more notable in cases where there is greater selection and greater availability of information, or where the products come with some certification (fair trade, free of child labor , organic, etc.